Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 14 October 2014 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCAAD1A9139 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.693
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PLING_QUERY=0.994, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BfYA0L4Jmm92 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23D11A00E0 for <>; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FBF323803D1; Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:49:39 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:49:35 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: James Woodyatt <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Cc: HOMENET Working Group <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Let's make in-home ULA presence a MUST !?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 21:49:41 -0000

On Oct 14, 2014, at 4:40 PM, James Woodyatt <> wrote:
> Naturally, you deprecate one of them, but my concern is that they never expire if the objective is for a ULA prefix to be invariant. So how many times can a network join with others before it runs out of space for deprecated and redundant but unexpired and invariant ULA prefixes?

I don't think the objective is for the ULA prefix to be invariant.   It's for the availability of a ULA prefix to be dependable, and for flash renumbering to be avoided whenever possible.   So there's no problem with deprecating a ULA when you have two, and no need for the ULA to remain stable over long periods of time.

The reason to want there to always be a ULA is that if you use a GUA as a ULA, the life cycle of your home network numbering is out of your control, and in the hands of whoever gave you the GUA.   That's the only thing I think the ULA prefix has to do on a homenet: provide you with dependable, graceful homenet-local numbering.